Climate Resilience and Water Security in Angola (P177004) Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) January 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ III 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 1 2.1. GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS .................................................................................................................... 2 2.2. METHODOLOGY FOR THE IPPF....................................................................................................... 3 3. WORLD BANK ESS 7 CRITERIA ............................................................................................... 5 4. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE PROJECT TARGET AREAS.......................................................... 8 4.1. ADDITIONAL SCREENING IN MUNICIPALITIES WHERE GROUPS MEETING ESS 7 CRITERIA MAY BE PRESENT .... 8 4.2. GENERAL INFORMATION ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN THE PROJECT TARGET AREAS ................................. 9 4.3. VULNERABLE GROUPS IN SOUTHERN ANGOLA ................................................................................. 14 4.4. SUPPORT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ANGOLA .................................................................................. 16 5. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ANGOLA ............... 17 5.1. INTERNATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE...................................................................... 17 5.2. FRAMEWORKS AND INSTITUTIONS WITHIN ANGOLA......................................................................... 18 6. ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES WITH THE PROJECT ............................... 21 6.1. COMPARATIVE APPROACHES TO WATER MANAGEMENT AMONG PASTORALIST AND SAN COMMUNITIES ... 21 6.2. POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES ....................................................... 21 6.3. CONSULTATION FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 22 6.4. SCREENINGS AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ NEEDS AND BARRIERS......................... 27 6.5. PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS ......................................................................................................... 30 6.6. CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) PANDEMIC RESPONSE INTEGRATION ..................................................... 32 6.7. COORDINATION, IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING .................................................................... 33 6.8. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM (GRM) .................................................................................... 33 7. PROPOSED BUDGET FOR IPPF IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................ 34 8. DISCLOSURE ....................................................................................................................... 35 9. CONSULTATIONS ................................................................................................................ 35 ANNEX 1: ESS 7 OUTLINE OF SOCIAL ASSESSMENT AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANS CRITERIA .. 36 ANNEX 2: REMOTE PRE-SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE TO IDENTIFY POPULATIONS MEETING ESS 7 CRITERIA .................................................................................................................................... 38 ANNEX 3: COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN (EN) ................................................................ 40 ANNEX 4: COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRES .................................................................................. 46 i Acronyms Associação de Conservação do Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Integrado Rural ACADIR (NGO) ESS Environmental and Social Standard FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FAS Fundo de Apoio Social (Social Support Fund) FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent GRM Grievance redress mechanism GRS Grievance Redress Service (World Bank) IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework Ministério da Acção Social, Família e Promoção da Mulher (Ministry of Social MASFAMU Action, Family and Women's Promotion) MAT Ministério da Administração do Território (Ministry of Territorial Management) Missão de Beneficência Agropecuária do Kubango Inclusão Tecnologias e MBAKITA Ambiente (NGO) Ministério da Cultura, Turismo e Ambiente (Ministry of Culture, Tourism and MCTA Environment) MINEA Ministério da Energia e �guas (Ministry of Energy and Water) OCADEC Organizacao Crista de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Comunitario NGO Non-Governmental Organisation PIU Project Implementation Unit SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan SSAHUTLC Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene WB World Bank ii Executive Summary The purpose of this Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) is to define requirements and approaches for the Climate Resilience and Water Security in Angola project to meet requirements under the World Bank’s Environment and Social Standard (ESS) 7: Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities1 (IP/SSAHUTLC). This includes requirements for project design and implementation where indigenous peoples are affected directly or indirectly by project components. Project activities that affect indigenous peoples do not commence until an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) is developed and approved by the World Bank and its implementation partners. The Climate Resilience and Water Security in Angola expects to improve Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services and water resources development in targeted areas (Huila, Namibe, Cunene, Benguela, Cuanza Sul, Cuando Cubango, Zaire) and strengthen the institutional capacity for climate resilience in the water sector. The project includes activities that address the improvement of water access services, the medium-term structural causes of climate vulnerability (information, physical investments, institutional strengthening) while providing the foundation for long-term resilience. The project consists of four components: Component 1 - Improving water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services in urban and rural areas in Angola; Component 2 - Strengthening Water Resources Management for Climate Resilience; Component 3 - Project Management, and Component 4 - Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC) This IPPF identified groups that meet the ESS 7 criteria based on available information and consultations—the San (!Xun and Khwe), Kwisi, Ovahimba and Ovatwa—and in addition it recommends a basic remote pre-screening by email questionnaire to be carried out by municipal administrators and, where available, civil society organisations. This pre-screening is to ensure that any other groups meeting ESS 7 criteria will be identified in municipalities and provinces where information is limited but there is a possibility of such groups being present. This screening will take place before activities commence in community settings. While not necessarily meeting ESS 7 criteria, it should be noted that multiple pastoralist groups in Cunene and Huila Provinces share traits with the San, Kwisi and Ovatwa and are significantly vulnerable, compounded by the ongoing drought conditions in southern Angola. The IPPF is a precursor and guidance for an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP), developed in the project preparation phase and in advance of the finalisation of implementation plans for activities affecting indigenous peoples, which will address specific Project activities once they are defined in terms of risk, impact, mitigation and ensuring the participation and benefit of indigenous peoples in the Project. This IPPF outlines actions and recommends measures, to be further defined in an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP), including: sensitization for key staff partners on indigenous peoples; inclusion of community leaders in preliminary local planning or project awareness sessions; assessment of application of FPIC; detailed consultations with communities in target areas, and ensuring sustainable water management, water infrastructure and/or sanitation investments. 1 http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/837721522762050108/Environmental-and-Social- Framework.pdf#page=89&zoom=80 iii The IPP formulation will involve consultation with stakeholders and particularly with the indigenous peoples, to ensure their communities benefit from improved social and economic outcomes within the Project, and to avoid or mitigate any negative consequences. The IPP will further define costs, roles and responsibilities, monitoring and evaluation of the measures to be taken within the Project. It will also confirm grievance mechanisms in place. The IPP must be cleared by the World Bank. iv 1. Introduction The purpose of this Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) is to define requirements for the Project under the World Bank’s Environment and Social Standard (ESS) 7: Indigenous Peoples/Sub- Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities2 (IP/SSAHUTLC). This includes organizational arrangements, requirements for project design and project implementation where indigenous peoples are affected directly or indirectly by project components. The IPPF is a precursor and guidance for an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP)3, which will address specific Project activities once they are defined in terms of risk, impact, mitigation and ensuring the participation and benefit of indigenous peoples in the Project. The IPP formulation during the project preparation phase will involve consultation with stakeholders and particularly with the indigenous peoples, to ensure their communities benefit from improved social and economic outcomes within the Project, and to avoid or mitigate any negative consequences. It is important to note circumstances under ESS 7 where Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) must be obtained, but regardless consultations with indigenous peoples must be carried out in a participatory and fair manner (see section 4.3). The IPP will also further define costs, roles and responsibilities, monitoring and evaluation of the measures to be taken within the Project, and confirm grievance mechanisms in place. Project activities that affect indigenous peoples do not commence until such a plan is developed and approved by the World Bank and its implementation partners. The IPP must also be cleared by the World Bank. This IPPF sets out the potential positive and adverse impacts of the Climate Resilience and Water Security in Angola, guidelines for social assessments, consultations, and carrying out free, prior and information consent (FPIC), as well as capacity needs and requirements for the grievance response mechanism (GRM), monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and budget. 2. Project Description Angola is the third largest economy in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Its rapid growth, following 25 years of civil which ended in 2002, has been unpinned by oil production. Due to fluctuations in oil prices, a high rate of population growth and institutional shortcomings, the high rate of growth from 2002 to 2015 has not been maintained, and the population continues to faces significant inequalities, with many Angolans lacking adequate service delivery in rural and urban areas. Increasing measures are being taken under the current President, João Lourenço, to improve service delivery and reduce inequality. However, this process has also been impacted by the continuing COVID-19 global pandemic and years of severe drought, especially in the south of Angola. The annual average number of people affected by drought in Angola is expected to rise from a current estimate of 1.9 million to 7.9 million in 2051-2100 due to future climate change and socio-economic projections. The annual average number of people directly affected by floods is expected to shift from 25,500 to 115,00 in the same period and under the same conditions (CIMA, UNDRR, 2019). 2 http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/837721522762050108/Environmental-and-Social- Framework.pdf#page=89&zoom=80 3 http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/972151530217132480/ESF-Guidance-Note-7-Indigenous- Peoples-English.pdf 1 The Project Development Objective is therefore to improve Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services and water resources development in targeted areas and strengthen the institutional capacity for climate resilience in the water sector. This project includes activities that address the improvement of water services delivering in urban & rural areas, and medium-term structural causes of climate vulnerability (information, physical investments, institutional strengthening) while providing the foundation for long-term resilience. The project consists of the following components: • Component 1: Improving water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services in urban and rural areas in Angola. Rehabilitation and expansion of water supply, sanitation, and hygiene services; strengthening sanitation planning in medium-sized cities; improved adaptation through rural water supply and drought resilience in Southern Angola. Consists of Component 1a: Building Resilience in Provincial Utilities: Rehabilitation and Expansion of Water Supply Production and Distribution in medium-size cities, and Sanitation Planning Strengthening and Capacity Development, and Component 1b: Strengthening rural water supply systems to build drought resilience in the South of Angola. • Component 2: Strengthening Water Resources Management for Climate Resilience Institutional support with technical assistance and key studies, and support to a comprehensive improvement of community-level infrastructure. • Component 3: Project Management. Project implementation, monitoring and compliance with the environmental and social standards framework • Component 4. Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC). This component will provide immediate response to eligible emergencies through the reallocation of funds from the Project. 2.1. Geographic Focus The project activities will take place in seven Provinces within Angola: Huila, Benguela, Zaire, Cuando Cubango, Kwanza Sul, Namibe and Cunene. These Provinces have a total combined population of 9.7 million people. The project aims to benefit at least 500,000 people from drought alleviation. Access to Access to Open Total Poverty Province Improved Improved Defecation Population Rate Water Sanitation Status (%) Huila (PDISA2) 2,653,754 46.4 49.9 32.9 62.3 Benguela 2,351,348 33.8 63.3 52.1 44.4 Zaire 634,061 15.9 68.6 73.7 14.3 Cuando Cubango 566,780 44.4 56.3 51.5 39.4 Kwanza Sul 1,993,025 50.3 34.8 31.6 66.6 Namibe 530,637 26.3 75.5 45.3 53.8 Cunene 1,053,928 53.8 65 14.4 85.2 Total Population / 9,783,533 38.7 59.1 43.1 52.3 Average Percentages 2 Table 1: Project summary (adapted from Annex 1, Project Concept Note) Map 1: Project areas (Source Annex 1, Project Concept Note) 2.2. Methodology for the IPPF Due to the global COVID-19 pandemic this IPPF was drafted remotely, using email, telephonic interviews, desk research and consultations conducted by OCADEC, MBAKITA and community members during November and December 2021. The basis of some of this IPPF also results from a World Bank scoping mission regarding ESS 7 to Huila, Namibe and Cunene in March 2020, where community and stakeholder interviews were conducted, though not relating directly to this project. The process included: i. Project Document Review: A desk review of project documents, has been carried out subject to updated documentation (currently project concept note, ESRS). A review of current Government of Angola guidelines on COVID-19, related World Bank procedures, and the COVID-19 situation in southern Angola has also carried out. ii. Literature Review: A desk review of situational, water supply, and climatic issues affecting indigenous peoples was carried out, including the effects of prolonged droughts in southern Angola. A review of common issues experienced in neighbouring countries when supplying water to similar indigenous groups was also carried out, and utilising the consultant’s experience of water issues in Namibia. 3 iii. Consultation design: Consultations included community and local authority consultations through civil society organisations. Due to timelines and travel restrictions consultations were carried out via third parties. These included two organisations in Provinces with San populations, Huíla and Cuando Cubango, and another organisation to consult with nomadic pastoralists in Cunene and Namibe. There are also San populations in Cunene, Moxico and southern Benguela, but these will not be reached due to time and budget constraints. A questionnaire was designed by the consultant in Portuguese, and orally translated where needed into local languages (for example San languages or Otjiherero dialects). The questionnaire was based on project objectives and World Health Organisation guidelines for household water and sanitation surveys.4 The NGOs involved with consultations were: • OCADEC (Organizacao Crista de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Comunitario): An NGO based in Lubango, principally serving San in Huíla Province with education, human rights and advocacy activities in Cunene, and occasionally in Cunene, Kuando Kubango and Moxico. ocadec.angola@gmail.com • MBAKITA (Missão de Beneficência Agro-pecuária do Kubango, Inclusão, Tecnologia e Ambiente): Based in Menongue, MBAKITA works principally in Cuando Cubango with agricultural training, health, livelihoods and human rights issues with San communities. mbakitaangola@hotmail.com • HIPO (Hizetjitwa Indigenous Peoples' Organization): a cross-border organisation of Ovahimba, Ovatjimba and Ovatwa based in northern Namibia. HIPO is community-based and is less structured, hence alternative assistance will be used if necessary. Consultation sites for San communities included : Mupembati and Hupa in Huíla, and Jamba Cueio, Mbundo and Ntopa, Cuando Cubango. Consultation sites for pastoralist groups included Virei in Namibe. iv. Consultation implementation: Consultations were aimed both at Key Informants (community leaders, development practitioners) and community members, ensuring both men and women, young and old are included. Local government staff relevant to the project were also consulted, including the Ministry of Energy and Water, Municipal Administrators (where available) and the Ministry of Social Action, Family and Women’s Promotion using a simplified questionnaire to assess priority needs in the area. Organisations assisting with consultations were provided funds for staff time and travel. Photographs, names and gender of participants were recorded. v. Draft consultation analysis and recommendation, formulated from the literature review and consultation feedback, drafting IPPF report and subsequent and final IPPF versions based on feedback and comments. Post-approval, the IPPF will be disseminated and consultations held for the final IPPF with communities. 4 https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/oms_brochure_core_questionsfinal2460 8.pdf 4 3. World Bank ESS 7 Criteria The World Bank identifies Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities as having the following characteristics in varying degrees5: i. Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous social and cultural group and recognition of this identity by others; and ii. Collective attachment6 to geographically distinct habitats, ancestral territories, or areas of seasonal use or occupation, as well as to the natural resources in these areas; and iii. Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are distinct or separate from those of the mainstream society or culture; and iv. A distinct language or dialect, often different from the official language or languages of the country or region in which they reside. ESS 7 also applies to communities or groups of Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities where the groups no longer inhabit ancestral territories in the project area, because of forced severance, conflict, resettlement programs, dispossession, natural disasters or urbanisation. The objectives of ESS 7 are: • To ensure that the development process fosters full respect for the human rights, dignity, aspirations, identity, culture, and natural resource-based livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples/SSAHUTLC; • To avoid adverse impacts of projects on Indigenous Peoples/SSAHUTLC or, when avoidance is not possible, to minimize, mitigate and/or compensate for such impacts; • To promote sustainable development benefits and opportunities for Indigenous Peoples/SSAHUTLC in a manner that is accessible, culturally appropriate and inclusive; • To improve project design and promote local support by establishing and maintaining an ongoing relationship based on meaningful consultation with the Indigenous Peoples/SSAHUTLC affected by a project throughout the project’s life cycle; • To obtain the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of affected Indigenous Peoples/SSAHUTLC as described in ESS7 if required (see below). • To recognize, respect and preserve the culture, knowledge, and practices of Indigenous Peoples/ SSAHUTLC, and to provide them with an opportunity to adapt to changing conditions in a manner and in a time- frame acceptable to them. Measures to ensure the above ESS 7 requirements must be put into place in the Project before activities with Indigenous Peoples/ SSAHUTLC commence. Consultation quality and broad inclusion is a particularly important factor in ESS 7 requirements, and is further detailed below: 5 The World Bank Environmental and Social Framework, p.77 http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/837721522762050108/Environmental-and-Social-Framework.pdf 6 Defined as generations of physical and economic ties to land customarily used or occupied by the group 5 Community Consultations Engaging with indigenous peoples to ensure the Project’s objective, local ownership and participation, and to avoid negative consequences involve steps, including at minimum: • Stakeholder analysis and engagement planning • Disclosure of information • Meaningful consultation in a culturally appropriate and inclusive manner, including gender and age. The terms meaningful consultation implies: (a) Involving indigenous people’s representative bodies and organizations (e.g. sobas, villages heads, community leaders, community-based) (b) Provide sufficient time for the processes required for indigenous peoples to make informed decisions (c) Allow for indigenous peoples’ participation in the design of project activities or mitigation measures that could potentially affect them either positively or negatively. Additionally, while indigenous peoples’ FPIC is not required in every project, other principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent below should be observed in consultation procedures. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) FPIC provides principles to ensure consultations with local communities are fair, balanced and inclusive, and in particular require explicit consent (by consensus) to be given to project activities affecting indigenous peoples in certain ways. The principles are • Free: consent given voluntarily and without coercion, intimidation or manipulation. A process that is self-directed by the community from whom consent is being sought, unencumbered by coercion, expectations or timelines that are externally imposed; • Prior: consent is sought sufficiently in advance of any authorization or commencement of activities; • Informed: nature of the engagement and type of information that should be provided prior to seeking consent and also as part of the ongoing consent process; • Consent: collective decision made by the right holders and reached through a customary decision-making process of the communities.7 The World Bank’s ESS 7 sets out conditions under which projects require FPIC: 1. Projects that have adverse impacts on land and natural resources subject to traditional ownership or under customary use or occupation; 2. Projects that have cause relocation of Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities from land and natural resources subject to traditional ownership or under customary use or occupation; or 7 For further information on FPIC see the World Bank Guidance Note for Borrowers - Environmental & Social Framework for IPF Operations ESS7: Indigenous Peoples/ Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities, p.10 6 3. Projects that have significant impacts on Indigenous Peoples/Sub-Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities’ cultural heritage that is material to the identity and/or cultural, ceremonial, or spiritual aspects of the affected Indigenous Peoples/Sub- Saharan African Historically Underserved Traditional Local Communities’ lives. Should FPIC be a requirement, the Project will contract independent specialists, who have experience of working with that specific community, or failing that similar experience with other indigenous peoples or comparable socioeconomic groups. These specialists will assist in the identification of the project risks and impacts, and assist the consultation process. In the absence of FPIC requirements, consultations must be carried out in a meaningful way, including the following characteristics as defined in ESS 7 guidance: • Begins early in the project planning process to gather initial views on the project proposal and inform project design; • Encourages stakeholder feedback, particularly as a way of informing project design and engaging stakeholders in the identification and mitigation of environmental and social risks and impacts; • Continues on an ongoing basis; • Is based on the prior disclosure and dissemination of relevant, transparent, objective, meaningful, and easily accessible information in a time frame that enables meaningful consultations with stakeholders in a culturally appropriate format, in relevant local language(s) and understandable to stakeholders; • Considers and responds to feedback; • Supports active and inclusive engagement with project-affected parties; • Is free of external manipulation, interference, coercion, discrimination, and intimidation; and • Is documented and disclosed by the Borrower. 7 4. Indigenous Peoples in the Project Target Areas Groups considered indigenous peoples under World Bank ESS 7 guidance are found chiefly in the provinces of Namibe, Huíla, Cunene and Cuando Cubango, and the midpoint estimate of the total combined population of these groups of 50,000. Information on these groups can be found in this section. Information on indigenous peoples in Angola is increasing, but remains limited in terms of widely available data. As illustrated in this section, the lack of information impacts planning and additional pre-screening for indigenous peoples is required in some areas to limited demographic and socioeconomic data. At the provincial and municipal level some data collection is carried out and surveys have been carried out by civil society organisations, which may complement and confirm information gathered for this project. Assessment of Provinces and Application of ESS 7 criteria The following assessment of the Provinces in regard to the presence of populations meeting ESS 7 criteria, or likelihood of those populations being present, is made based on currently available information. Note that basic pre-screenings are recommended (see 4.2 below), that can be conducted by email with provincial and municipal health or administrative staff, and NGOs, especially in cases where both information is limited and proximity to populations meeting ESS 7 criteria is possible. This may be a more rapid and cost effective method of assessment to define where to focus planning resources regarding ESS 7. a) Cuanza Sul: No populations meeting ESS 7 criteria reported or expected. No screenings recommended. b) Zaire: No populations meeting ESS 7 criteria reported; remote screening recommended in municipalities bordering the Democratic Republic of the Congo due to potential small populations of “forest peoples�. c) Namibe, Huíla, Cunene, Cuando Cubango and Benguela: Populations meeting ESS 7 criteria are known or have been reported; remote screening recommended in the all municipalities of these provinces where project activities occur; remote screening recommended in the respective southernmost municipalities of Benguela province due to proximity to known populations meeting ESS 7 criteria (Baía Farta, Chongeroi, Cubal and Ganda) and reports of small San populations. 4.1. Additional screening in municipalities where groups meeting ESS 7 criteria may be present Government data, academic literature, NGOs and field visit confirm the presence of groups meeting ESS 7 criteria in Namibe, Cunene, Huíla, Cuando Cubango and parts of Moxico Provinces. As information is limited regarding indigenous peoples in Angola, the project will ensure that a basic screening questionnaire, to be completed via email or fax, is sent to municipalities where communities meeting ESS7 criteria are likely to be found. For example, small numbers of San or Kwisi could be feasibly present in border areas of Benguela Province, the municipalities of Baía Farta, Chongeroi, Cubal and Ganda. 8 Batwa, Bambuti and other forest peoples (also referred to as “pygmies�, a pejorative term) have not been reported in northern Provinces of Angola. However, there is a distinct lack of socioeconomic and ethnographic data in these areas, and it remains possible that such groups being present in small numbers due to a) their historical presence groups in Angola and b) current presence of such groups close to the border in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo. If present, they may now participate in informal labour and agriculture, rather than traditional livelihoods. Therefore, the same basic pre-screening should also be carried out with local municipal administrators, and/or local MINEA, MCTA and MASFAMU staff, to confirm the presence, or lack thereof, of any groups potentially meeting ESS 7 in Zaire. The pre-screening questionnaire is attached as Annex 3. The process should be included in the IPP development or by the PIU in partnership with local Provincial and Municipal officials, and the Ministry of Energy and Water. Should additional municipalities be recorded to have groups meeting ESS 7 criteria they will be included in IPP development following ESS procedures. 4.2. General information on indigenous peoples in the Project target areas Diversity and Vulnerable Communities in Angola Principal comunidades Major communities Nyanyeka Humbe Caluquembe Chipindo Ganguela Lucira Caconda Mbundu Quilengues Camacuio Herero Chicomba Quilengues Ambuela Ambó Cuisse Comunidades menores Quipungo Cuvango Smaller communities Bibala Nyemba Quipungo Matala Ambuela por exemplo Lubango Cuanhama for example Mwila Mucuvale Chamutete Moçâmedes San Handa Cubati Gambwe Mulondo Cuvelai Virei Mucaroca Chiange San Tômbua Okalwa Mupa Humbe Muhakahona Cahama San Oncocua Xangongo Cuanhama Iona Muhimba Mudimba Ondjiva Ombandja Ruacana An illustrative map of approximate locations of some of the diverse ethnic groups in Namibe, Huíla and Cunene Provinces8 (Mendelsohn, 2018) Grupos étnicos O Sudoeste de Angola é o lar de uma grande métodos de cultivo, rendimentos e outras 8 Mendelsohn JM, Mendelsohn S (2018) Sudoeste diversidade de pessoas pertencentes a diferentes de Angola: um caracter ísticas Retrato da (ver ítulos Terra Cap e da Vida. 7, South West 8 e 9). grupos que podem ser distinguidos linguística, Angola: a Portrait of Land and Life. Raison, Windhoek Em geral, existem sete grandes comunidades genética e/ou tribalmente. Cada um desses etnolinguísticas no Sudoeste de Angola. Cinco parâmetros pode ser ofensivo se as características 9delas – Nyanyeka Humbe, Ganguela, Ambó, forem usadas de forma determinista para separar Herero and Mbundu – predominam em diferentes e descrever pessoas. Por estas razões e potenciais áreas, como mostrado aqui. As unidades mais abusos, algumas pessoas preferem suprimir a pequenas são frequentemente identi cadas dentro Angola is ethnically diverse, with over 40 languages spoken within the country. Many Angolans are subject to rural poverty and experience resource, infrastructure or geographic limitations that reduce access to service provision, health, education and the formal economy. It should therefore be noted that while this IPPF deals specifically with indigenous peoples as defined under ESS7, many urban, rural and pastoralists communities in Angola share challenges related to resources, isolation, language, culture and representation. Any measures in the Project that result from this IPPF may be applicable to wider communities, and in settlements where both indigenous peoples and other local communities are found, measures should be applied in an equitable fashion. Categories and nomenclature Angola, in common with many African states, does not employ the term ‘indigenous peoples’. When specifically referred to, the collective names of San and certain pastoralist groups are used (usually preferred by such groups), or one of several terms including: • Most vulnerable groups (grupos mais vulneráveis), a term which is applied to many groups including women, persons with disabilities, communities affected by poverty to a greater extent than others • Ethnolinguistic minorities (minorias etnolinguísticas) • Autóctones, which is understood to refer to groups in similar context to indigenous peoples. Due to Angola’s diverse population and many languages, multiple names are often used for the same group of people or community, consisting of both different terms and geographic references. There is currently no standardisation within Government for these usages. In general, the usages of ‘c’ and ‘k’, ‘u’ and ‘w’ are often interchangeable. In addition, various prefixes are used in Bantu languages for plural or singular groups9, frequently including Mu-, Ova-, Va-, Ba- in southern Angola, hence Ovahimba, Muhimba and Himba refers to the same group. Furthermore, it should be noted that across Sub-Saharan Africa the Bantu word “twa� and derivatives is used as a label for many groups10, with literal meanings of ‘stranger’, ‘foreigner’, ‘other’ in various Bantu languages. Therefore, there is not necessarily any significant link between Ovatwa discussed below, San groups who are sometimes labelled Twa or Abatwa, the Twa people of south west Zambia, and Batwa groups found in Democratic Republic of Congo near Angola’s north west border. It appears that the Kwisi and Kwepe are often referred to Vatwa or Vatua, but not necessarily include the Ovatwa found living in similar areas to Ovahimba further south and east. The term Curocas is also used in relation to these groups, particularly the Kwepe, but is sometimes used to refers to the peoples of the geographic area close to Tombua and the Curoca River, not the Kwepe alone. Analysis is complicated by the range of names used for these groups, both within Angola and between different academic schools of thought. The lack of standardisation of names used in World Bank projects and in government would assist the coordination and implementation of research, data collection, development planning and projects. 9 McCormack, A. (2008). Subject and object pronominal agreement in the southern Bantu languages: From a dynamic syntax perspective. 10 See for example, Jeffreys, M. (1953). The Batwa: Who Are They? Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 23(1), 45-54. Retrieved June 8, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/1156032 10 4.2.1. The San in Angola The term “San� is a collective name for groups with comparable hunter-gatherer heritage and languages utilising click consonants11, but with their own group names, customs, culture, history and language. They are often referred to a Bushmen, a term that is pejorative to some and acceptable to others. While some groups are more closely related to one another, others are from separate language families and geographically distant areas. San people are one of the oldest and most genetically diverse human groups studied in world, with archaeological evidence of their presence in southern Africa for a minimum of 20,000 years, with some estimates up to 150,000 years ago. The San now consist of between 130,000 and 200,000 people in 15 main groups, spread over Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa. In previous decades, anthropologists estimated the population of San of Angola to number around 5,000. However, the population appears more likely to be between 10,000 and 20,000 based on government and NGO findings.12 For example, in 2016 MINARS (Ministério da Assistência e Reinserção Social) registered over 8,000 San individuals in alone.13 This would make Angola potentially the third largest San population in southern Africa after Botswana and Namibia, with populations of approximately 60,000 and 40,000 San respectively. The long-term occupation of the San across southern Angola is indicated by historical records, including rock art, cultural records, colonial accounts and the usage of Khoisan languages in southern Angola (including the recently extinct language of the Kwepe people, Kwadi, in Namibe). The largest population of San in Angola is likely to be in the provinces of Cunene or Cuando Cubango, with San communities also found in Huíla and southern areas of Moxico. In general, the various San groups identify themselves with their respective group names rather than the external terms. The San14 in Angola are also referred to as “khoisan�, “koisan�, “vassequele� and “kamussequele� among other terms. Khoisan (or Khoesan) is also the term for the larger family of languages within which San languages are categorised, and in South Africa denotes members of groups related but distinct to the San, such are Griqua and Nama. San groups in Angola are principally the !Xun (!Kung) in Huíla, Cunene and in smaller numbers in Cuando Cubango, and the Khwe who largely are found in Cuando Cubango. Small numbers of San in Moxico are likely also Khwe. Both the !Xun and Khwe are also found in northern areas of Namibia and Botswana. Angola’s !f speak one of between three to five dialects, and while two dialects exist for Khwe speakers. There may a small population of Kede speakers (also known as Hai||om) or their descendants in Cuando Cubango. While the San languages of !Xun and Khwedam are spoken within their communities, use may be decreasing due to a lack of mother tongue education, economic pressures and discrimination. Hence many San speak the languages of neighbouring Bantu groups. 11 Different are clicks denoted by the symbols: |, ||, !, ‡, ʘ 12 Field surveys by the NGOs OCADEC, MBAKITA and ACADIR 13 MINARS is now integrated into MASFAMU (Ministério da Acção Social, Família e Promoção da Mulher/Ministry of Social Action, Families and the Promotion of Women). A total of 8092 San people were registered by MINARS, consisting of 985 (12%) adult men, 1,311 adult women (16%), 2,303 boys (28%) and 3,493 girls (43%). 14 In this report, the term “San� is used as it remains the it was selected by San political representatives at regional meetings in 1998 and 2003, attended by San from Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Angola, as the preferred term for broad reference to the many distinct San groups. 11 While in the past the San were hunter-gatherers, most San southern Africa now live on a combination of subsistence agriculture, informal manual work and food aid, though a number of significant traditional livelihood practices remain, including gathering of bush foods and in some cases hunting and craft production. NGO reports, research studies and news articles, show that Angola’s San appear to share similar socioeconomic challenges, marginalisation and deprivation found among the San in neighbouring countries, together with experience over 25 years of civil and cross-border conflict since 1966. Many San from Angola fled across the border to Namibia during the conflict in Angola, joining or been co- opted into service with the South African Defence Force (SADF) during the border war in Namibia’s independence struggle, which included a range of Angolan forces (principally FNLA/UNITA alongside the SADF and FAPLA/MPLA alongside Namibia’s PLAN) and their allies. Hence a significant number of !Kung from Angola and their descendants are found in eastern Namibia and the Northern Cape region of South Africa. Three Angolan registered NGOs have specific areas of work with San communities. These are: • OCADEC (Organizacao Crista de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Comunitario): An NGO based in Lubango, principally serving San in Huila Province, but having implemented education, human rights and advocacy activities in Kuando Kubango, Cunene and Moxico. Has previously implemented project components on access to HIV/AIDS services and education for San communities and works closely with Provincial Government. • MBAKITA (Missão de Beneficência Agro-pecuária do Kubango, Inclusão, Tecnologia e Ambiente): Also based in Menongue, MBAKITA works principally in Cuando Cubango with agricultural training, health, livelihoods and human rights issues with San communities, but also carries out some activities in Huila, Cunene and Moxico. • ACADIR (Associãcao de Conservacão do Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Integrado Rural): A Menongue-based NGO working with San communities on issues of education, advocacy and human rights. OCADEC, ACADIR and MBAKITA have a range of reports on their work with San communities. As with many Angolan NGOs, they experience difficulties due to the low availability of civil society funding for their activities. It should be noted that missionary organisations also have carried out work with San communities in southern Angola, however information on the scope and type of support is not easily available. It has been noted that the national and international political representation of Angolan San is weak, and no single institution exists to ensure adequate representation or advocacy. The San in Angola do receive some media attention on a national level, with the national broadcaster TPA featuring short reports on the San and with some coverage in national newspapers. 4.2.2. Ovahimba, Ovatwa and Ovatjimba Several groups likely meeting ESS 7 criteria are found in south west Angola, mainly within Namibe and Cunene Province: the Ovahimba, Ovatjimba, and Ovatwa. Varying estimates put the combined population of these groups between 20,000 to 60,000. All speak dialects of the Herero language, which differ but are mutually intelligible, and in general share similar livelihood patterns. They are also 12 present in north west Namibia, and some cross-border migration occurs for jobs, resources and services, and in particular to access healthcare and education. These groups rely to a greater or lesser extent on pastoralism and subsistence agriculture, and while such groups are often referred to as nomadic pastoralists, as with the San, they likely moved between various territories, depending on resource availability, particularly grazing, and rainfall or drought cycles. In the present day such groups may continue to move between territories through transhumance corridors, grazing areas or family groups, but are in general considerably more sedentary than in the past due to the provision of water, infrastructure, service provision and agricultural support at particular locations, as well as reduced land and resource availability, and changes in climate. Herero-speaking pastoralist groups in southern Angola follow matriclan systems, where members are linked through the clan of their mothers. These matriclans roughly, though not always, align with differing ethnicity. Though distinct groups, the Ovahimba, Ovatjimba, (and Ovazemba, see below) are likely related, whereas the Ovatwa appear to be less so, but have adopted the former’s culture and livelihoods (they are perhaps more closely related to the Kwisi).15 The Ovahimba found in south-west Angola and north-west Namibia, and speak a dialect of the Herero language. Ovahimba women are particularly well-known for their appearance, including continued traditional practices of braiding their hair and applying a red mixture of ochre and butterfat to their hair and skin. The Ovahimba self-identify and have been recognised as indigenous peoples at an international level, especially through their advocacy and campaigns over land issues in Namibia. It is not clear whether that level of organisation and representation is also present in Angola. Population estimates tend to be close to 50,000 for Namibia and Angola combined, so likely in the tens of thousands. In areas where more Ovahimba are found, for example parts of southern Cunene, they are often wealthy compared to their neighbours due to the relatively large numbers of cattle owned. Therefore, while very vulnerable to drought, often extremely remote and a minority in national terms, Ovahimba can be somewhat dominant in relations between local communities. Historically the Ovatwa (Ovatue, Twa, Vatua, Vatwa) were predominantly hunter-gatherers and continue to have lower livestock numbers than the Ovahimba, who tend to own substantially larger cattle numbers than other pastoralist groups in their areas. The Ovatwa are considered to be of lower economic and social status by the pastoralist Ovahimba, and often provide herding and other services to Himba households. As with the Ovahimba, Ovatjimba and Ovazemba, the Ovatwa are also found across the border in north-west Namibia, where they are classified as a ‘marginalised community’ the government along with the Ovatjimba and San. The population size of Ovatwa in Angola is unknown, but as in Namibia likely to number in the thousands. Little information exists on the Ovatjimba, who appear to be lesser in population size and between the Ovahimba and the Ovatwa in their social and economic status. The Ovatjimba are a semi-nomadic pastoralist group, who have historically relied on both cattle and hunter-gatherer livelihoods. In similarity to the Ovahimba, the Ovatjimba speak a dialect of Herero. The population size is unknown. 15 Oliveira S, Fehn A-M, Aço T, et al. Matriclans shape populations: Insights from the Angolan Namib Desert into the maternal genetic history of southern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017;00:1 –18. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa. 23378 13 In neighbouring Namibia, the Ovatjimba number more than the Ovatwa but less than the Ovahimba, so estimates are likely to be in the thousands. 4.2.3. The Mukwisi The Mukwisi (Kwissis, Mucuissi, Cuissis, Cuisses, sometimes also referred to as Vatua) are a small population, likely numbering in the thousands, found in Namibe, Huíla and Cunene. They previously spoke a Bantu language, which became extinct sometime in the last 20 to 50 years. They now speak a Herero language, Kuvale, of their neighbours. Kwisi sometimes use the group name of neighbouring peoples, for example the Kuvale who they often live near and work for (much like the Ovatwa with the Ovahimba), or identify by geographic area. These relationships are not as equals, however. There is also a group known as Ovakwandu in the Serra das Neves region (Kwandu language of Mashi people further east), who may or not be the same group as Kwisi.16 It should be noted that the name Kwisi is used pejoratively by neighbouring (higher status) groups and hence can be taken as very offensive by the Mukwisi themselves, many of whom avoid using it. Therefore, care should to taken when referring to such groups directly or indirectly, to understand the appropriate terms for each locality. While the Kwisi people are well described by anthropologists and linguists, and recognised by local communities in consultations by World Bank staff, some claims have arisen that Kwisi are poorer members of other pastoralist or former-pastoralist groups. Genetic analysis of individuals claiming a Kwisi identity has shown differing genetic identities to neighbouring Kuvale individuals.15 The following possibilities, separately or in combination, exist as grounds for this idea: periodic government or NGO assistance targeting Kwisi communities could result in others identifying as Kwisi, the term Kwisi may have adopted to also describe poorer members of certain groups17, or Kwisi could have similar connotations to ‘twa’, in that it might both be a group label and a general term differentiating economic or cultural identities. Whatever the case, it is clear that there are Kwisi who a distinct ethnic group, though the term may also be used to more generally describe people of lower economic and social status in other groups. The Ovatwa are also considered of a lower status, and a marked similarities exist between both groups roles with their socially higher status neighbours as semi-nomadic ‘peripatetic’ groups, providing services rather than fully adopting livestock or agricultural practices. 4.3. Vulnerable groups in southern Angola While municipalities where the San, Ovahimba, Ovatwa, Ovatjimba and Kwisi are present will require inclusion in IPP processes following ESS 7 procedures, a number of other groups that may not meet ESS 7 criteria, but are vulnerable and subject to the effects of limited remote area service provision, poor food security, limited livelihoods and climate change, are found in southern Angola. They are 16 Linda Jordan. A Comparison of Five Speech Varieties of Southwestern Angola: Comparing OluHumbe, OluCilenge, OluKwandu, OluNgendelengo, and OluKuvale in the Kamucuio Municipality, Namibe Province. 2015. SIL Electronic Survey Reports 2015-017. 1-29. 17 See Argenta, M. Marcas da etnicidade: indumentária e pertença étnica no Curoca, sudoeste de Angola. 2012. Dissertation, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarin. 14 mostly pastoralists or recent former-pastoralists. Due to their vulnerable status, key Project stakeholders (Government ministries, municipalities, Executive Committee or Project Implementation Unit - PIU) may wish to include some of these groups in consultations for IPP design, though it is not a requirement under ESS 7. The Kwepe: The Kwepe are a small group Kuvale-speaking people, formerly speakers of Kwadi, a Khoesan language that recently became extinct during the last 15 to 40 years. They live near to the coastal areas of central-west Namibe. The population size is unknown, but from studies and geographic range likely to be small. They have similar subsistence patterns to neighbouring Kuvale and Kwisi community members, though are perhaps between the two in socioeconomic hierarchy. The Ovazemba: Another Herero-speaking pastoralist cross-border group somewhat similar to the Ovahimba, and seem to have a smaller population than other Herero-speaking pastoralist groups. In Namibia the Ovazemba and Ovahimba are not included in the ‘marginalised communities’ grouping set by the government for increased assistance, as they may tend to have locally comparatively higher numbers of cattle. However, on a national level in both countries they constitute a minority and lack service provisions due to the remote areas in which they live. Other pastoralist groups in southern Angola: Pastoralist communities in southern Angola are diverse in identity, culture and socioeconomic situation. While a large number of groups exist, many of the groups are interrelated linguistically, culturally, socially and economically. Members of a few of these groups retain a largely pastoralist lifestyle, though are not “truly� nomadic, in the sense that limited migrations take place in the same transhumance corridors. For example, seasonal migrations in the far south still take place, and during the drought cattle were moved to areas of better grazing significantly far away. Others are sedentary or semi-sedentary, through the provision of water infrastructure and increasing agriculture, services and land distribution. Some live in peri urban areas close to towns or in nodal villages. Loosely grouped (non-exhaustive and subject to amendment) by language or dialect, these pastoralist groups include: Otjiherero speakers: • Ovakuvale, Ovahumbe (Ovankumbi), Ovabundu, Ovandimba, Ovahakaona, Ovakavona, Ovatjavikwa.18 Nyaneka-Nkhumbi speakers: • Nyanyeka, Ngambwe, Humbi, Handa, Muhila (Mwila). Oshivambo speakers: • Oshikwanyama and limited numbers of Oshindonga. While not necessarily meeting ESS 7 criteria, such groups share some characteristics and vulnerabilities of groups that do meet ESS 7 criteria, and this should be taken in account for Project planning, consultations and measures for social benefits or mitigation. 18 The Ovatjavikwa were highlighted by Casa Civil to the World Bank as being potentially very vulnerable. Further information is needed on this group to assess their situation. 15 4.4. Support by the Government of Angola The Government of Angola implements programmes that specifically address San and certain pastoralist groups, both through national line ministries and provincial government. The Ministry of Social Action, Families and the Promotion of Women (MASFAMU) has a mandate to support and integrate San communities and pastoralist groups into the mainstream economy under the broader concept of support to vulnerable groups. MASFAMU’s mission is to implement social policies and programs for the most vulnerable population groups, fight poverty, defend and strengthen family welfare, promote women, community development, and guarantee gender equality and equity (Presidential Decree 19/18 of January 29, 2018). In November 2021, MASFAMU and the National Council for Social Action (CNAS) held a two-day conference in Lubango on marginalised ethnic minorities in Angola, focused on the San and nomadic pastoralists. The Social Action Fund (FAS), an agency under the Ministry of Territorial Administration (MAT), supports and contributes to the promotion of sustainable participatory development among the poorest and most vulnerable populations through poverty alleviation programs and stabilization. FAS representatives recently carried out a scoping mission of San communities, which were presented in the above November conference. FAS has received substantial investment from the World Bank. The Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education carry out programmes with specific components on San and pastoralist communities, including mobile health services and access to clinics. Provincial government and municipal administrations are the direct service providers to such communities, and often have greater amounts of data than at central government. Overall support includes the provision of food aid, equipment and training for agriculture, schools, clinics, education provision and in some cases housing. While a range of activities take place, the lack of comprehensive reporting for government projects reduces the ability to form a coherent national overview or assess the impacts of such activities. Various support programmes for livelihoods and education are carried out with San and pastoralist communities in Angola by United Nations agencies (for example FAO and UNICEF) in partnership with the government. Currently NGO engagement remains limited with indigenous peoples in Angola, though some projects are being implemented, including by OCADEC, MBAKITA and ACADIR mentioned above. 16 5. Legal and Institutional Framework for Indigenous Peoples in Angola 5.1. International definitions of indigenous people The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) has undertaken work on defining “Indigenous Peoples� in the African context. They list the following characteristics of Indigenous Peoples: • Their cultures and ways of life (i.e. livelihoods, customs, dress, housing) differ from dominant society, and are under threat, in some cases to the point of extinction • The survival of their way of life depends on access and rights to their lands and the natural resources • They often live in inaccessible regions which are geographically isolated • They suffer from various forms of marginalization, politically, economically and socially • They often suffer from discrimination as they are often regarded as less developed and less advanced than more dominant sectors of society • National, political and economic structures which often reflect the interests and activities of the national majority, can threaten the continuation of their cultures and ways of life and impede their ability to fully participate in their futures and development • They self-identify as being member of a socio-cultural group and others in that group recognize them as a member. The ACHPR findings, approved by African member states including Angola, also note that: i. The term “Indigenous Peoples� in Africa does not mean first habitants of a given area, in exclusion of other African communities or people who arrived at a different time; ii. Indigenous Peoples in Africa do not seek special or new rights, but equality with their fellow nationals, including recognition and protection of their customary land rights and their cultures; iii. Indigenous Peoples in Africa do not seek the right to self-determination for the purpose of secession but as a tool for inclusive governance, conflict resolution and sustainable development; iv. In many African countries several ethnic groups can qualify as minorities, a concept which is also growing in scope to include religious, linguistic and other groups, but are not necessarily Indigenous Peoples. In the African context, the ACHPR observes that the term “Indigenous Peoples� should not be confused with the use of the word indigenous, meaning akin to “originating�, as Indigenous Peoples rather refers to groups of peoples who have experienced unique discrimination and injustices. Current or former hunter-gatherer groups are routinely recognised as Indigenous Peoples by the ACHPR under these guidelines. The United Nations gives no precise international definition of Indigenous Peoples is used, but the following criteria are used: • Self-identification as Indigenous Peoples at the individual level and accepted by the community as their member. • Historical continuity with pre-colonial and/or pre-settler societies • Strong link to territories and surrounding natural resources • Distinct social, economic or political systems • Distinct language, culture and beliefs • Form non-dominant groups of society 17 • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples and communities. 5.2. Frameworks and Institutions within Angola The Constitution The Angolan Constitution has wide ranging provision, some of which are directly relevant to indigenous peoples. The Constitution broadly provides for civil and political rights, including security (Article 36), freedom of expression and information (Article 40), freedom of association (Article 48) and participation in public life (Articles 52). It also explicitly recognises traditional authorities (Title 6 - Local Government, Chapter 3). Rights to property (Article 37) include the rights of local communities. Environmental rights are enshrined in Article 39 against pollution, for protection of the environment and conservation. Intellectual property is dealt with in Article 42 but does not mention traditional knowledge. Article 15 recognises access and use of land by local communities, though ascertains that all land is ultimately property of the state. Land and property may be expropriated for compensation under the Constitution. Additionally, Article 16 establishes that natural resources are the property of the state, and Article 3 declares sovereignty over the development and use of natural, biological and non- biological resources. Angola is a monist state, and Article 13 specifies that international law forms an integral part of the Angolan legal system, including approved or ratified international treaties and agreements. National Policies and Legislation a. Water specific legislation Law No. 6/02 on Water use (2002) is the principal law and provides for water property, general principles of water management, water resources register, and water use planning and institutional organisations. There are numerous laws, policies and decrees related to water in Angola, links to which can be found on the FAOLEX policy database.19 While community water management is promoted in Angolan policies, there is no direct legislation regarding water access for pastoralist communities or indigenous peoples. b. Other relevant legislation The Government of Angola operates National Development Plans (Plano De Desenvolvimento Nacional), currently for the period 2018-2022, that include broad measures to reduce poverty and serve vulnerable communities. There is also a long-term development plan up to 2025, ‘Angola 2025: 19 http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/cgi- bin/faolex.exe?rec_id=000018&database=valid&search_type=link&lang=eng&format_name=@ESW AT 18 Angola um País com Futuro’20, which includes the aim of ensuring the availability of social services to the families, in particular to the most vulnerable families, along with a range of socioeconomic objectives. Angola has wide ranging legislation. For further details, collated Angola legislation can be found on a number of online repositories.21 Of particular note for indigenous peoples: • The Land Act No. 9/04 provides for property rights, rural community rights, natural resources, land classification, registration, expropriation and concession. The act gives recognition customary rights and rural community land, as well as to transhumance corridors. However, rural community land rights rest upon “useful and effective� land usage. In 2018, an interministerial commission was founded to promote the registration of rural land for local communities (Presidential Decision No. 14/18). • Law No. 15/05 approving the Basic Agricultural Development Act provides guidance on the use of natural resources, but focusing on the agricultural domain. Law No. 6/17 on Forest and Wildlife Basic Legislation provides guidance on the sustainable use of forests and wildlife. • The Framework Act for Social Protection (Law No. 7/04 of October 2015), which aims to reduce inequality and improve social integration and economic and social development, provides special protection measures to protect the most vulnerable groups, including “persons in severe poverty�. International Agreements The Government of Angola is signatory to ILO107, the Indigenous and Tribal Populations Convention of 1957, which it ratified in 1976, though reporting is limited. Angola is signatory to several international treaties of relevance to the rights of Indigenous Peoples, including ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination), CEDAW-OP (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women including the Optional Protocol on reporting), CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child), ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and CESCR (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). Angola also voted in favour of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007, which though non-binding does confer agreement to develop national policies that embrace the aims of that declaration. Gap Analysis of ESS 7 and National Legislation While GoA recognises the need for projects and activities that focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised communities, including the San and nomadic pastoralists, recognition of these groups is not well reflected in national policy: • GoA does not recognise the concept or application of “indigenous peoples�. Though the vulnerability of groups such as the San and nomadic pastoralists is increasingly recognised by government in practice, but not as yet in specific policy. 20 http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ang184675.pdf 21 http://www.fao.org/faolex/country-profiles/general-profile/en/?iso3=AGO / www.ecolex.org / https://www.legis-palop.org 19 • The Constitution enshrines a broad anti-discrimination approach and the provision of basic services to the most poor communities, which Is reflected in national planning documents. • MASFAMU provides an institutional and policy focal point for ethnic minorities, though lacks a detailed overall policy to coordinate and deliver government services to these groups. • Protections for indigenous peoples’ culture, traditional livelihoods and languages are limited or do not exist in national legislation. • GoA, in common with many governments in Africa, does not apply principles of free, prior and informed consent to development planning in policy or practice. However, traditional leadership is recognised, and specifically for minority groups under a National Department of Communities and Institutions of Traditional Power, transferred in 2018 from the Ministry of Territorial Administration and State Reform to the Ministry of Culture. Hence, specific measures under ESS7 are not well catered for in Angola’s national legalisation, though broader related measures targeting vulnerability do exist, and elements of the World Bank policy are found in practice. 20 6. Addressing the Needs of Indigenous Peoples with the Project 6.1. Comparative approaches to water management among pastoralist and San communities Whilst substantive work is being carried out in Angola on San and nomadic pastoralist groups, there is a greater body of available academic work in neighbouring Namibia. In particular, despite some substantive differences, comparisons can be drawn between the Kunene Region of north west Namibia and Namibe and Cunene in Angola. These adjoining areas not only share similar climate and landscapes, but many of the same groups also – members of the same family are often found on both sides of the border. Currently, due to severe drought conditions, number of pastoralists have crossed into Namibia to seek grazing and support. The project should seek to share experiences in both directions across the border, in particular when providing and managing water for nomadic pastoralists and the San. Links to some examples of literature of interest are provided below. A limited but broader body of work is available on the inclusion of indigenous peoples in water governance, the leading conclusions being around effective community participation and understanding of cultural values and practices related to water management. Beyond effective participation and recognition of traditional knowledge, in particular San and nomadic pastoralist communities in Namibia have greatly benefitted in health and livelihoods from reliable and clean water supplies, but have been negatively affected by: • Susceptibility to climate change and severe drought due to livelihoods, environments and poverty. • Limited training or capacity building of local community and municipal water management bodies. • Limited maintenance training and service availability, and local availability of parts for water pumps, including positive and negative aspects of solar, electric, fuel and manual pumps. • Insufficient depth of boreholes or water storage given extreme drought fluctuations in rainfall and water table. • Weaknesses in the sustainable management of water resources, including rising population numbers and livestock reducing water availability or quality. • Costs associated with water services where metering is installed or where diesel pumps, generators or frequent maintenance are required. • Limited or non-preferential access to water where such groups form a lower social or less wealthy minority within wider communities. 6.2. Potential Impacts of the Project on Indigenous Peoples Overall, the project is expected to bring positive impacts to indigenous peoples, including indigenous women, due to the provision of water as a right and basic service, through some potential for negative impacts to indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups exists. Risks are present within the project, especially regarding inclusion of indigenous peoples and ensuring investments are suitable for communities in question. As mentioned in the Concept Environmental and Social Review Summary and this document, issues of access and information to geographically remote communities, sensitivity to literacy, language and 21 cultural barriers and inclusion in consultations may require differing resources and approaches to other groups. Hence, while negative effects should be limited, the task remains to ensure that indigenous peoples are included in and benefit from the project to same extent as other beneficiaries. In all projects, potential and known current situational issues for indigenous communities in Angola that should be taken into considered include: • Geographic isolation – financial, infrastructure and time restrictions of reaching remote communities • Language and communication challenges – the need ensure participation and understanding of activities and services, and consent if necessary (including FPIC) • Discrimination – local social and cultural barriers may exist due to socioeconomic hierarchies. • Limited resources and infrastructure – limits to service delivery and local participation due to restricted means to do so. With regards to these barriers and the previous section, specific project related concerns for indigenous peoples therefore relate to: • Participation in project design and water management: the provision of information to, inclusion and education of targeted indigenous communities. • Suitability of management structures, infrastructure and equitable access to water and sanitation: ensuring measures taken by the project are sustainable for the livelihoods, resources, culture and social conditions of San and nomadic pastoralist communities. This should also take into account ensuring access to water where drought may cause resource competition for water between communities. Specific issues may affect indigenous woman, in common with other women in marginalised rural communities – for example, they risk being less involved with project planning due to patriarchal systems of governance (although despite male dominance, women have strong roles in both San and nomadic pastoralist cultures), and maybe less included in new livelihood opportunities that may develop from improvements in water supply and management. On the other hand, women are often tasked with fetching water from wells, streams, communal taps and other sources, and hence stand to benefit from improved water infrastructure, in terms of reduced time and labour, and in some cases reduced risk. Reduced risk may include shortening long journeys to fetch water, which can present risks when alone, and also availability of nearby toilets, curtailing the need to walk into uninhabited areas at night for open defecation. Community questionnaires were carried out in the formulation of this IPPF to contribute to analysing and addressing these issues (see section 6.3, also Annex 3). Suggestions for the types and scope of interventions under an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) to be developed at the start of the project are outlined below. These may differ in the IPP as the Project planning process is finalised, due to additional information gathered or reprioritisation within the Project, but provide guidance to develop an IPP in line with current project goals. 22 6.3. Consultation Findings To provide additional information to this IPPF in relation to groups meeting ESS 7 criteria in Angola, questionnaires were carried out with San communities and Huíla and Cuando Cubango Provinces (5 villages in total), and in Namibe and with semi-nomadic pastoralists. The latter consultations were subject to lengthy delays due to factors beyond the control of the IPPF process, and will be updated as the information is received. Representatives of MASFAMU and MINEA were also included in the corresponding Provinces.. The questionnaire, provided in Portuguese, used relevant questions from the World Health Organisation guidelines for household water and sanitation surveys22, and additional questions specifically related to the project. Questionnaires were carried out individually or in small groups with the Soba or headman (as available at the location), and in somewhat larger group interviews with community members. Smaller focus groups with women were carried out separately. 6.3.1. Summarised findings from community consultations The following findings are summarised from questionnaires delivered in the field by local non- governmental organisations. The overall issues experienced by communities consulted were generally poor access to clean drinking water, with some exceptions, and poor access to water for livelihoods activities, which compounds the effects of drought and ongoing food insecurity. a) Populations consulted Five settlements were consulted between 1 December 2021 and 13 December 2021. • Jamba-Cueio, Jamba-Cueio Commune, Rivungo Municipality, Cuando Cubango. • Mdundo, Caiundo Commune, Menongue Municipality, Cuando Cubango. • Ntopa, Caiundo Commune, Menongue Municipality, Cuando Cubango. • Hupa, Tchiquaqueia Commune, Cacula Municipality, Huíla. • Mupembati, Mupembati Commune, Quipungo Municipality, Huíla. Total number of participants: 276 (113 women, 163 men). Total female to male headed households in settlements: 155 female,158 male. Languages spoken: !Xun, Nhaneka, Tchokuwe, Umbundo, Portuguese. b) Communications Literacy levels: low to very low. Communications access: telephone access is generally limited but available, poor or no internet access, some radio coverage, with the exception of Cuando Cubango where settlements surveyed had no communication. This underscores the need for in person information through meetings, with translation where necessary, though some use of telephones and radio programmes is possible. c) Land and housing A mix of informal housing built with construction materials and traditional housing built with natural resources, with the exception of Cuando Cubango where only traditional housing was used. Most communities have legal title to the land they occupy provided by the government. This may have 22 https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/oms_brochure_core_questionsfinal24608.pdf 23 relevance to obtaining FPIC should any investments take place that displace or disrupt community members, though given the importance put on water access is likely to reach consent with undue concern. Again, the exception is Cuando Cubango, where the communities surveyed lived on State land without title, and in one case apparently on private land (this may be an individual leasehold). d) Employment Low levels of formal employment; mainly occasional informal employment (for example, labour). Otherwise largely subsistence: small scale crop and livestock production, primarily for own use, and collection of wild plants for own consumption and sale. Note that in Cuando Cubango reliance on natural resources is far higher, and livelihoods are limited. It should be noted that the lack of income generation is both limited because of few resources including water, and limits community maintenance and resources to obtain water. e) Main sources of water Reliability of water supplied varied somewhat, but was only judged as regularly unreliable in Cuando Cubango. However, San communities in Huíla were aware of other villages without water supplies, and requested they should be assisted. Drinking, washing and cleaning: Locally dug wells, springs and less frequently boreholes. Locally dug wells, springs and less frequently river water (via “Caleluia� motorbikes with water tanks) and boreholes. Often local well are shared with livestock by necessity or accident. In Cuando Cubango reliance on seasonal water sources, rainwater harvesting and rivers was also common. Preferred source if available: boreholes, piped water from rivers or other permanent sources, or dams. Agriculture and livestock: Locally dug wells, rainwater. In Cuando Cubango reliance on seasonal water sources, rainwater harvesting and rivers was also common. Preferred source if available: improved wells, irrigation systems, dams, rainwater collection, boreholes. f) Water collection Some settlements had water close by or in the settlement. The furthest water collection point was a locally dug well 5km from the settlement. In some villages in Cuando Cubango, during dry season people have to look for water sources further away, which may take up to 4 hours. In all cases water collection relied upon women and children. g) Sanitation Water treatment by communities: rare to none. It is notable that basic cleaning methods where water is not sourced from boreholes do not appear to frequently used (allowing settling was mentioned once, no mention of basic filtering, ash, etc). Villages did report varying amounts of disease and diarrhoea that could be linked to water quality. Access to toilets: Largely open defecation, some pit latrines except in Cuando Cubango. Preferred toilets: Open defecation. It should be noted that due to large areas of land and often dry conditions, the impacts of open defecation are often less obvious for rural communities in semi-arid southern Africa. Substantive behaviour change is often needed through participatory training. h) Maintenance and management Maintenance tends to be provided by the communities, or not at all. A such, maintenance issues that require expenditure remain outstanding. In Cuando Cubango there was little or no infrastructure in 24 the villages visited in any case. Other communities who do not have an active water management committee are aware of a previous water committee existing. Maintenance was a central concern of communities – essentially little maintenance exists. i) Project attitudes Aspirations: to improve health, particularly among children, and improve water access for the wider community, and improve livelihood opportunities. Concerns: the sustainability of maintenance of project infrastructure investments was the main concern raised. Specific issues raised by women: Focus groups with women highlighted perceived direct benefits of reduced distances and time to fetch water, ability to improve hygiene practices. As women and caregivers they noted improved water and sanitation would reduce diarrhoea, and other waterborne or related diseases such as cholera, especially in children, and children would spend more time in school with an adequate water supply. It should be noted that, while the consultations make it clear that villages consulted may not benefit directly from the project, participants in general have in the past or continue to experience pressures and barriers from a lack of available water, especially clean water for drinking. There is therefore an expectation created from consultations that some positive change should be seen. 25 6.3.2. Photographs of community consultations in Hupa and Mupembati, Huíla 26 6.3.3. Summarised findings from local MASFAMU and MINEA representatives Local government representatives reported that the situation regarding reliable, clean and adequate water supply to communities that are the focus of this report, are generally poor. This is combination of outdated or non-existent infrastructure, remote areas, and lack of prioritisation. This situation has been compounded by the economic situation than Angola has faced over recent years, drought and climate change, and more recently COVID-19. The economic challenges also present difficulties for government and communities in foreign exchange, and therefore obtaining equipment and parts. As well as support for infrastructure and financial sustainability, creation and establishment of water management committees in the communities were mentioned as important, and improving access roads. There are variable experiences across communities in southern Angola. In Huíla, the San community in Mupembati the water infrastructure has been inoperative for more than 10 years and no resources have been available to repair it, whereas in Hupa the community have a relatively new and working pump system, though maintenance is problematic. Some repairs in Mupembati may have been carried out after the consultations, which also indicates a potential advocacy issue for these communities. In Cuando Cubango, despite the extraordinary water wealth that province can access, potable water is non-existent for the San and agropastoral communities. Communities draw water directly from rivers, defecate in the open and do not have community latrines, as there is a lack of infrastructure in their communities. Water access and management policies have not been well implemented in these areas, and there is also a limited number and resources for civil society. As such there is also a very limited amount of non-government support, and little health and water management capacity. Communities frequently experience health issues linked to poor water quality: malaria, diarrhoea and other diseases such as cholera, leptospirosis, schistosomiasis, typhoid and parasites. MINEA and MASFAMU representatives stated a need for more support in terms of water resources management, investment for access to clean drinking water and support for civil society partnerships. The project could contribute to these goals, and general improvements in food and energy security, human and environmental health. 6.4. Screenings and social assessment of indigenous peoples’ needs and barriers 6.4.1 Recommended Additional Pre-Screenings (see section 4.2) As described earlier in this IPPF, basic remote pre-screenings via email should be carried out with municipality staff, and where possible local NGOs, to assess the presence or absence of indigenous peoples in those provinces mentioned below: a) Cuanza Sul: No populations meeting ESS 7 criteria reported or expected. No screenings recommended. b) Zaire: No populations meeting ESS 7 criteria reported; remote screening recommended in municipalities bordering the Democratic Republic of the Congo due to potential populations. 0 c) Namibe, Huíla, Cunene, Cuando Cubango and Benguela: Populations meeting ESS 7 criteria are known or have been reported; remote screening recommended in the all municipalities of these provinces where project activities occur; remote screening recommended in the respective southernmost municipalities of Benguela province due to proximity to known populations meeting ESS 7 criteria (Baía Farta, Chongeroi, Cubal and Ganda) and reports of San populations. The Project Implementation Unit (PIU) or Executive Committee may decide to carry out such pre- screenings before or within the process of Indigenous Peoples Plan formulation. Where pre-screening provides additional information on groups potentially meeting ESS 7, these should be further investigated and if confirmed, included in IPPF preparation. It should be noted that other World Bank projects with the Government of Angola may carry out similar screenings to meet ESS 7 criteria. Where such screenings occur, World Bank staff may share screening results to ensuring effective use of resources. 6.4.2 Social Assessments In order to define the needs of indigenous peoples in Provinces where groups meeting ESS 7 criteria have identified, and to increase that municipalities knowledge and inclusion of such communities, social assessments should be carried out where the presence of groups meeting ESS 7 criteria has been confirmed or may be confirmed by additional screening. Annex 1 outlines a targeted social assessment for the purposes of ESS 7. In addition to these requirements, the social assessment processes is an opportunity to gather further information on indigenous peoples needs, and possible project intervention areas, in relation to water access and supply, and WASH. Note that project activities for indigenous peoples should not be defined until adequate information for sustainable and relevant interventions is gathered, through participatory processes such as the social assessment and ESIA. Social assessments will be carried out with the assistance of a consultant, with experience of working with those specific communities, or failing that similar experience with other indigenous peoples or comparable socioeconomic groups. contracted to produce the Project’s IPP. It must include the following elements, subject to any restrictions or precautions due to the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic (also see below): • Participation of indigenous peoples, taking into account culture, language and location of communities • Participation or consultation with local NGOs, government offices and, where relevant, academic institutions • Obtain basic socioeconomic data through interviews and focus groups communities, including water & sanitation needs • Obtain needs on communication for behaviour change in WASH for indigenous peoples (through knowledge, attitudes and practices assessment on WASH) • Ensure issues of challenges and successes in water & sanitation and other service delivery, and civil registration/identity documents provision are investigated with communities. • Ensure discussions over the benefits and possible negative effects of the Project’s activities. • Data sets must be comparable across Municipalities and Provinces. Local government representatives, NGO staff and academics who are familiar with such groups should participate in design and implementation of the assessments. By using local offices, organisations and academic institutions (for example for enumeration) to assist with social assessments, capacity and 1 focal points will also be improved regarding such communities. It should be noted that municipalities in Angola often have significant amounts of data collected which is not readily accessible on a national level. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Bank has developed guidelines for risk reduction during consultations and stakeholder engagement.23 These must be following, alongside any national restrictions or guidance, in the project’s formulation and implementation phases. Relevant measures include: • Avoid public gatherings (taking into account national restrictions), including public hearings, workshops and community meetings, and minimize direct interaction between project agencies and beneficiaries / affected people; • If smaller meetings are permitted, conduct consultations in small-group sessions, such as focus group meetings. If not permitted, make all reasonable efforts to conduct meetings through online channels, including Webex, Zoom and Skype meetings; • Diversify means of communication and rely more on social media and online channels. Where possible and appropriate, create dedicated online platforms and chatgroups appropriate for the purpose, based on the type and category of stakeholders; Please refer to the latest available World Bank Note: Public Consultations and Stakeholder Engagement in WB-supported operations when there are constraints on conducting public meetings for full guidance. Following the ESS 7 criteria, social assessment will also include a review of legal and institutional frameworks relevant to indigenous peoples in Angola, assess risks and vulnerabilities of relevant communities and identify key stakeholders in government, civil society and the private sector. Consultations should include the participation of at least one civil society organization familiar with the targeted communities, and will ensure as fully as possible that a cross section of community members participate, including by gender and age, while respecting cultural leadership structures in place. All consultation meetings will have minutes recorded. The findings of the social assessment will identify measures necessary to avoid adverse effects, or if such measures are not feasible, the identification of measures to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects, and to ensure that the communities receive culturally appropriate benefits under the project. The consultation process will ensure that Project activities involving indigenous communities are demand driven and where possible confer ownership and make use of traditional knowledge. In the case that the social assessment and consultations do not indicate broad community support by indigenous communities for the Project, components affecting indigenous communities must be redesigned or excluded. On the presumption that exclusion does not occur, an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) will be prepared by the Project in consultation with indigenous communities and civil society organisations that support those communities. The IPP will follow principles set out in ESS 7 and its corresponding 23 Technical Note: Public Consultations and Stakeholder Engagement in WB-supported operations when there are constraints on conducting public meetings (World Bank, 2020) 2 guidance note24, including ensuring effective grievance mechanisms, monitoring, evaluation and reporting procedures are put into place. Disclosure arrangements for the IPP will include meetings with communities consulted during the IPP design process, meetings with Project staff, Government of Angola partners and civil society organizations. This will include the distribution of explanatory materials, ensuring the materials use appropriate culture and language, and taking into account literacy rates in communities (in which case local government, civil society and community mobilisers should be used to give verbal explanations). 6.5. Proposed Interventions As mentioned previously, the below interventions may differ in the IPP as the Project planning process is finalised, due to additional information gathered or reprioritisation within the Project, and provide guidance to develop an IPP in line with current project goals. The below interventions are designed to address recommendations in section 6.1 and findings from 6.3. 6.5.1. Sensitization for key staff partners on indigenous peoples Staff trainings with the project provide opportunity for sensitisation sessions on indigenous peoples and other pastoralist communities, in terms of language, culture, discrimination, socioeconomic situations, geographic location and inclusion. These trainings should be a half day, and may additionally involve visits to communities if numbers and distance allow. Whether or not these trainings involve community visits, members of these communities should be consulted and involved in the training, as well as members of civil society organisations and other experts. It is recommended that trainings take place as soon as possible. If the trainers and PIU decide, or GoA partners request, further capacity building in regard to ESS 7 and related communities, additional sessions will be built into the Project. If COVID-19 restrictions continue, part or all of such training may be carried out online. 6.5.2 Inclusion of Sobas and community leaders in preliminary local planning or project awareness sessions Project staff and MINEA officials should inform and consult with Sobas and traditional leaders from communities meeting ESS 7 criteria, with the inclusion of female representatives, to ensure communities have access to information prior the local project design, management and infrastructure investment plans. Sessions should include a basic overview of the project’s aims and objectives, and set out principles for consultation with communities. These meetings should confirm the initial findings of this IPPF, in terms of defining project investments in communities. As only a limited number of communities were consulted for this IPPF, likely requirements will vary from location to location. The key to this activity is to provide inputs from community members into project design, rather than after project investments have been decided. The opportunity should also be used to ensure community leaders are aware of issues of sexual exploitation and abuse prevention, 24 http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/972151530217132480/ESF-Guidance-Note-7-Indigenous- Peoples-English 3 especially where associated project risks are identified, the Project Grievance Redress Mechanism and risks associated with climate change. These meeting may also define the need for, barriers to and ensure consent under ESS 7 FPIC requirements. Use of appropriate language, location and materials is a requirement for education sessions and other meetings. 6.5.3 Assessment of application of FPIC in project activities When an outline of project activities and investments are defined, including input from the consultation processes, those activities and investments must be screened to assess any FPIC requirements under ESS 7 (see section 3). Though these are unlikely, in particular acquisition of land for the project, and any larger project infrastructure investments including pipelines and dams, may trigger requirements for community consent. In the case that land acquisition is needed that will affect indigenous peoples, consent may have been obtained through processes the consultations above, but will otherwise require consultations in line with ESS 7 guidelines. 6.5.4 Detailed consultations with communities in target areas Following the initial sessions above, the project should hold consultations with community groups and their leaders, to gain focused inputs regarding community needs. The method of these consultations may vary according to local capacity and oversight, and may be undertaken by MINEA, consultants, civil society and/or community leaders, providing oversight and monitoring by project staff can be maintained. Use of appropriate language, location and materials is a requirement for education sessions and other meetings. Where community water committees are active, these can take a principal role in assisting to inform both the project and community. Where community water committees do not exist, these meetings should sensitize for community water groups/committees creation, access community capacity and willingness for community water committees management. 6.5.5 Behaviour Change Communication (BCC) in WASH for indigenous communities For projects in intervention areas where there are communities of indigenous peoples, communication for behaviour change in WASH is necessary to improve knowledge, attitudes & practises in community WASH. The communication program should be design through knowledge, attitudes and practices assessment on WASH. Use of appropriate language, location and materials is a requirement for education sessions and other activities. Where community water committees are active, these can take a principal role in assisting BCC for community. 6.5.6 Sustainable water management, water infrastructure and/or sanitation investments As informed by the processes above, the project will implement sustainable measures to improve water management, access and infrastructure, and/or sanitation, taking into account community concerns, development priorities and lessons learned in sustainability from Angolan and regional programmes. These may include: a) Create community water groups/committees in articulation with sobas, traditional leaders, municipal and communal administrations. 4 b) Installation, repair or replacement of water infrastructure with sustainable maintenance and at sustainable abstraction volumes. Reliability and available maintenance are of greater concern given remote location with poor access and communications – faulty infrastructure may cause communities to be without water for long periods due to reporting and transport times alone. c) Training for communities on water management and local water capacity, including local abstraction levels, maximising on the widespread acceptance of water management committees in communities. d) Training for communities on health related to water quality, livestock and human health (disease, nitrates, etc). Water points often become used for multiple purposes, effective separation and management are required to retain water availability and quality. e) Installation, repair or replacement of sanitation infrastructure, suitable and relevant for the community, with sustainable maintenance. The suitability and sustainability of toilet facilities particularly relies on health training, sanitation practices and consultation. f) Training for communities on sanitation, including approaches such as Community-Led Total Sanitation25. For example, mapping and use of dyes to increase understanding of faecal contamination, participatory exercises to analyse factors around toilet use and preferences. g) Maintenance training to community members and municipal technicians. h) Ensuring budgets and parts availability for installed equipment and clear communication for maintenance requests. 6.5.7 Undefined activities and risks Over time and due to changes in project programming, climatic events, COVID-19 global pandemic related economic, health and travel impacts, project activity risks may emerge before or during implementation. Additional activities or risks will be identified in the IPP, or if after the IPP is finalised, added to the IPP after discussion and agreement with the Executive Committee, PIU and World Bank staff. 6.6. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Response Integration The continuing Coronavirus (COVID-19) global pandemic will affect Project, operations and activities during 2021 and 2022 and potentially throughout the Project implementation timeframe. Indigenous peoples are at particular risk due to generally poor access to health services, fewer resources, less information and often exposure to other risk factors such as poor nutrition. The project will follow measures established by the Government of Angola and the World Bank to ensure COVID-19 risks are minimised, with any specific risk factors for indigenous peoples mitigated within the IPP design. Also see relevant measures for consultation and stakeholder engagement in section 6.4. 25 https://www.communityledtotalsanitation.org/country/angola 5 6.7. Coordination, implementation and monitoring With a range of government and non-government stakeholders involved in the project, as well as communities and civil society, it is essential that coordination and dissemination mechanisms are defined in the IPP to ensure understanding the IPP and its goals, as well as its effective implementation. These will follow the same principles and processes as the Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Environmental and Social Management Plan, but will consider any additional measures required for the full understanding and participation of indigenous peoples. This, for example, may include uses of different languages, presenting materials in person or hardcopy due to poor infrastructure and communications, and giving additional time for dissemination and consultations. During initial consultations with community leaders, the requirements for communication and dissemination must be established with agreement of all parties. A framework ensuring meaningful and culturally appropriate consultation and, where required, FPIC, leading to broad community support for the Project’s activities by indigenous peoples will be included in the Project Implementation Manual. This section can be included in the duties of the consultant appointed for IPP design. The Project will hire an Environmental and Social Specialist and Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist during Q1 of project implementation, who will both work with the consultant appointed for IPP design and ensure that implementation and monitoring of the IPP is carried out during the course of the Project. It is preferable that one of these project staff have experience of working with indigenous peoples or comparable socioeconomic groups, for example pastoralists. 6.8. Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) The Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) is described in the Project’s Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP). In addition to the measures outlined in that document, the following GRM must adopt the following measures in relation to indigenous peoples: For complaints related to indigenous communities, the Complaints Resolution Committee will consult at least one representative of either the community or a community-based organization, and one independent NGO with work experience in indigenous communities. An agreement must be put in place with the selected NGO when the CRC becomes active, to ensure availability for any GRM cases involving indigenous peoples. In such cases, appropriate language and culture must be observed by CRR members when communicating with communities. The IPP must define, and CRR must adopt, measures to ensure complaints from indigenous communities are not hindered by language, infrastructure or discrimination. Where possible the GRM used for indigenous peoples should build upon the traditional systems already used for local conflict resolution. Other measures may include the CRR appointing a local contact person, known and trusted by communities in question, to relay complaints. This could be a community member or a member of civil society, but should not be a staff member of bodies involved in implementing the Project, including GoA. It is important that the measures ensure reprisals complaints are avoided, for example by ensuring the identity of those reporting complaints is not shared. 6 Along with methods for complainants to access the Project’s GRM, they can also access the World Bank’s Grievance Redress Service (GRS)26, and submit a complaint via email (grievances@worldbank.org) or in writing to: The World Bank Grievance Redress Service (GRS) MSN MC 10-1018 1818 H St. NW Washington, DC 20433, USA 7. Proposed Budget for IPPF Implementation This is a preliminary budget for implementing recommendations suggested in this IPPF, which may change during the course of the Project planning phase. The final costs may be higher or lower, depending on activities defined in the Indigenous Peoples Plan. Budget Item Unit Number Unit cost Total Estimated (USD) Cost (USD) IPP and sensitisation training development Per training 6 $1,500 $9,000 consultant(s) Travel budget for follow Per province up to remote screenings (maximum 6 6 $3,000 $18,000 (if required) provinces) Per province One day sessions with (maximum 6 6 $1,800 $10,800 community leaders provinces) Additional consultations Per province for participatory (maximum 6 6 $2,500 $15,000 planning provinces) IPP monitoring and Per year 6 $6,000 $36,000 supervision End of project IPP Lump sum 1 $12,000 $12,000 assessment Sub Total $100,800 Contingency (7%) Lump sum 1 $7056 Total $107,856 26 https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/products-and-services/grievance-redress-service 7 8. Disclosure This Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) will be shared with organizations working with indigenous communities in Angola, and will be translated into Portuguese. The IPPF will also be shared with province governments and municipalities hosting indigenous communities. The IPPF will be disclosed at the World Bank website, in the MINEA website, and copies of the IPPF will be available in the government offices at provincial and municipal level, in the municipalities within the project area. The IPPF should be available for comment for a minimum of 15 days. The same measures will be taken with the finalised IPP, alongside additional methods that may be defined in the Stakeholder Engagement Plan. 8 Annex 1: ESS 7 Outline of Social Assessment and Indigenous Peoples Plans Criteria Targeted Social Assessment for the Purposes of ESS7 1. The breadth, depth, and type of analysis of the social assessment is proportionate to the potential risks and impacts of the proposed project on the IP/SSAHUTLC. The social assessment referred to in this Appendix is conducted as part of the environmental and social assessment under ESS1. 2. The social assessment includes the following elements, as needed: 1. A review of the legal and institutional framework applicable to IP/SSAHUTLC. 2. Gathering of baseline data on the demographic, social, cultural, economic and political characteristics of the IP/SSAHUTLC; the land and territories that they have traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied; and the natural resources on which they depend. 3. Taking the review and baseline data into account, the identification of project-affected parties and the elaboration of a culturally appropriate process for involving and consulting with the IP/SSAHUTLC at each stage of project preparation and implementation (see paragraph 23 of ESS7). 4. An assessment, based on meaningful consultation tailored to IP/SSAHUTLC, of the potential adverse and positive effects of the project. Critical to the determination of potential adverse impacts is an analysis of the relative vulnerability of, and risks to, the affected IP/SSAHUTLC, given their distinct circumstances and close ties to land and natural resources, as well as their potential lack of access to opportunities relative to other social groups in the communities, regions, or national societies in which they live. The assessment should consider differentiated gender impacts of project activities and impacts on potentially disadvantaged or vulnerable groups within the community of IP/SSAHUTLC, which must include specific concerns of and impacts on women. 5. The identification and evaluation of measures necessary to avoid adverse impacts, or if such measures are not feasible, the identification of measures to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such impacts, and to ensure that the IP/SSAHUTLC receive culturally appropriate benefits under the project. This is based on meaningful consultation tailored to IP/SSAHUTLC and, where relevant, pursuant to paragraph 24 of ESS7, on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent. IP/SSAHUTLC Plan 1. In most cases, the IP/SSAHUTLC Plan includes the following elements, as needed: a. A summary of the Targeted Social Assessment, including the applicable legal and institutional framework and baseline data (economic, social, cultural) & knowledge, attitudes & practises assessment in WASH. b. A summary of the results of the meaningful consultation tailored to IP/SSAHUTLC, and if the project involves the three circumstances specified in paragraph 24 of ESS7, then the outcome of the process of FPIC carried out with the affected IP/SSAHUTLC during project preparation. c. A framework for meaningful consultation tailored to IP/SSAHUTLC during project implementation. d. Measures for ensuring IP/SSAHUTLC receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate and gender sensitive and steps for implementing them. If necessary, this may call for measures to enhance the capacity of the project implementing agencies. 9 e. Measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate IP/SSAHUTLC for any potential adverse impacts that were identified in the social assessment, and steps for implementing them. f. The cost estimates, financing plan, schedule, and roles and responsibilities for implementing the IP/SSAHUTLC Plan. g. Accessible procedures appropriate to the project to address grievances by the affected IP/SSAHUTLC arising from project implementation, as described in paragraph 35 of ESS7 and in ESS10. h. Mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to the project for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on the implementation of the IP/SSAHUTLC Plan, including ways to consider input from project-affected IP/SSAHUTLC in such mechanisms. 10 Annex 2: Remote pre-screening questionnaire to identify populations meeting ESS 7 criteria Municipality: Date returned: Contact person: Date sent: Contact telephone: Contact email: This questionnaire related to an upcoming project, to be implemented by the Ministry of Energy and Water, financed by the World Bank, with the aim of improving water management and access in areas of Angola prone to drought and water issues. The Government of Angola aims to ensure all community members benefit equally from such projects. As such, it is necessary to establish the identification of vulnerable groups and minorities municipalities included in the project. The information your municipality provides will assist with the planning and implementation of components within the project. We ask you to provide information as accurately as possible in consultation with your colleagues. Please type your answers within the document and return it via email. We appreciate the completion of this questionnaire by _____(date)________, to be sent to _____(name & email address)__________. Should you require further information regarding this questionnaire, please contact ____(name & telephone & email)_______. Please fill in the information in the spaces provided below, using as much space as need. 1. Within your municipality, are there communities considered to be particularly vulnerable by your office? (Yes/No). If yes, please identify the group(s) and their approximate locations. 2. Within your municipality, are there communities who speak minority languages? (Yes/No). If yes, please identify the group(s) and their approximate locations. 3. Within your municipality have you identified groups who, in the recent past or currently, did not develop agricultural practices and relied on hunting or other forms of livelihoods that rely on natural resources? (Yes/No). If yes, please identify the group(s) and their approximate locations. 11 4. Are there groups within your municipality who continue to practice pastoralism include seasonal migration? (Yes/No). If yes, please identify the group(s) and their approximate locations. 5. Please provide any other information or resources that may be relevant. 12 Annex 3: Community Questionnaire Design (EN) Date: Time: Location: Interviewer(s): “We would like your permission to ask you questions related to your community’s access to water. The government is planning to commence a bigger project to improve the supply of clean water for communities, including in southern Angola. This might include better management of water and maintenance, as well as improving water supply. We are not from the Ministry of Energy and Water. They will implement the project. We are helping collect information to plan this project. So we are not here to make promises about the project and what it might bring. We want to understand your views and experiences so that project can be designed to help communities such as yours. It’s important that we listen your ideas and concerns. If you don’t want to take part in this discussion, you do not have to. If you do take part, please answer honestly. We may ask you for your name or take photos of this meeting, but only with your permission. You can tell us if you would prefer that we do not. If you agree, please let us know if you require translation, or there are parts of the discussion you do not understand.� Confirm consent of participant(s) YES / NO Brief description of participants (number, gender, leaders, etc). Names are not necessary, but helpful for sobas etc if they wish to give them. 1. Approximately how people live in your community? 2. What languages do they speak? (list languages) 3. How many males and how many female headed households in the village? Male ____ / Female _____ 4. Can many people read and write? (yes / no / most / a few etc) Yes / Most / A few / Very few or none of g-water for members of your household? 13 5. Do you or members of this community have access to telephones and internet? Yes / No Detail: 6. What kind of housing do people live in here? Traditional houses (wood/grass/clay etc) Number: _____ Informal houses (walls of zinc or construction materials) Number: _____ Brick or cement of Number: _____ 7. Who owns the land where you live? Do you have rights over this land? Community members Have title Deed/legal document Government Another neighbouring group A private individual Unknown Detail: 8. Do you people in this village live and earn income? If so, from what activities? (include numbers and details where possible) Formal regular employment in a job Informal regular employment (labourer/assistant etc) Occasional informal employment Business (e.g. small shop or bar) Growing crops for own use Livestock for own use Growing crops for selling Livestock for selling Collecting wild plants for own use Collecting wild plants for sale Others and details: 9. Does your village have a reliable source of water all year? A. For drinking: Yes / Sometimes / No B. For cooking and cleaning: Yes / Sometimes / No C. For livestock and agriculture: Yes / Sometimes / No 14 10. For water to drink, what is the main source of for members of your household? (Tick all that apply) Borehole Local dug well Local dam Large dam Piped to village Shared community taps Pipes and taps inside houses Pipes and taps near houses Pipes and taps one area of the settlement Rain water collection Water deliveries by vehicle Natural spring/stream/lake Others: 11. For cooking and cleaning, what is the main source of for members of your household? (If different) (Tick all that apply) Borehole Local dug well Local dam Large dam Piped to village Shared community taps Pipes and taps inside houses Pipes and taps near houses Pipes and taps one area of the settlement Rain water collection Water deliveries by vehicle Natural spring/stream/lake Others: 12. What would be the preferred water source for home use from the options above and why? Details: 13. For livestock and agriculture in the village, what is the main water source? (Tick all that apply) Borehole Local dug well Local dam Large dam Piped to village Shared community taps Pipes and taps inside houses Pipes and taps near houses Pipes and taps one area of the settlement Rain water collection Water deliveries by vehicle Natural spring/stream/lake Others: 15 14. For livestock and agriculture in the village, What would be the preferred water source for home use from the options above and why? Detail: 15. How long does it take to collect water for the house? Long time / Short time / Water is at the house Time estimate: 16. Who will normally collect water for the house? (Tick all that apply) Adult male / Adult female / Child male / Child female Detail: 17. Do you treat your water in any way to make it safer to drink? Yes / No / Do not know 18. If yes, how do you clean the water? (Tick all that apply) Boil Add bleach or chlorine Use a cloth or sand to filter Use a water filter Solar disinfection Leave water for dirt to settle Others: 19. What access to people here have to toilets? (Tick all that apply) Own at house Shared Bush/open defection Flush toilet Basic pit latrine Improved pit latrine (vented) Working Not working 16 If shared, number of toilets and estimated number of people: Details of facilities: 20. Which type of toilet do most people prefer using, and why? Details: 21. Who repairs and pays for repairs of water equipment? (Tick all that apply) Ourselves Local government Nobody Others and details of technicians (local, non local): 22. Tell us how repairs carried out? (Tick all that apply) Quickly Slowly Never Delays in sending spare parts Delays in technicians arriving Repairs community members 23. The most frequent water maintenance problem is: Details: 24. Who manages how water is used in the village? (Tick all that apply) Ourselves Local government 17 Nobody Local committee Others/details: 25. We do not know if the project will be in this place, but if it is, what benefits/positive aspects do you think this project could have in communities like yours? Comments: 26. What negative aspects do you think this project could have in communities like yours? Comments: 27. Do you have any concerns or questions about this project you would like to tell us? Comments: 28. Do you have any other comments or questions for us? If we cannot answer them now, we will do our best to send you the answers. Comments: “Thank you for taking part. Your answers will help in planning this water improvement project, and help communities such as this one. � 18 Annex 4: Community Questionnaires 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58